who owns online courses and course materials? who owns online courses and course

A T R E N S S E L A E R P O L Y T E C H N I C I N S T I T U T E

T H E P E W L E A R N I N G A N D T E C H N O L O G Y P R O G R A M

B Y C A R O L A . T W I G G

Who Owns OnlineCourses and Course Materials?

Who Owns OnlineCourses and Course Materials?

Intellectual Property Policies for a New Learning Environment

Who Owns Online Courses and Course Materials? Intellectual Property Policies for a New Learning Environment by Carol A. Twigg© The Pew Learning and Technology Program 2000

Sponsored by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts.

Center for Academic TransformationRensselaer Polytechnic InstituteDean’s Suite, Pittsburgh Building110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180518-276-6519 (voice)518-695-5633 (fax)http://www.center.rpi.edu

On February 17–18, 2000, a group of

fourteen higher education leaders

gathered at the Biltmore Hotel in Miami,

Florida, to participate in an invitational

symposium. The topic was “Who Owns

Online Courses and Course Materials?

Intellectual Property Policies for a New

Learning Environment.” This was the

second of the recently created Pew

Symposia in Learning and Technology,

whose purpose is to conduct an ongoing

national conversation about issues

related to the intersection of learning

and technology.

The participants in the Biltmore sympo-

sium fell into four categories: (1) recog-

nized experts on the topic of intellectual

property; (2) those who are actively en-

gaged in developing and implementing

online programs and who are grappling

with intellectual property issues on a

daily basis; (3) people who approach the

issue from a corporate perspective and

who collaborate with both individuals

and institutions; and (4) noted higher

education thinkers on the topic of tech-

nology-mediated programs. By blending

those familiar with the current policy

and legal situation related to ownership

issues with those struggling to delineate

the practical implications, we hoped to

arrive at a point of understanding that

would have a positive impact on both

theory and practice.

By design, we excluded several aspects

of the copyright issue because other

communities, especially the library com-

munity, are addressing them (e.g., fair

use in distance learning environments).

We focused on a particular area: the

development and ownership of online

courses and course materials. We alsoconcentrated on credit-bearing coursesrather than noncredit courses, trainingcourses, self-study courses, and so on.Finally, we centered our attention primarily on full-time faculty and theirengagement in developing courses andcourse materials rather than on adjuncts, who are usually hired by an institution to accomplish specific instructional tasks.

Why is this issue such a hot topic? Forcenturies, there has never been muchneed to figure out if one party owned a course as a commodity that could besold elsewhere. But information tech-nology and the Internet appear to havechanged the status quo. The process ofcommitting to writing the course content(e.g., lectures, exercises) and digitizingcourse materials makes it possible, if notpotentially lucrative, to package coursesin such a way that they can become mo-bile and can be delivered by people otherthan the original author. Courses havebecome “commoditized” and sought as

commercial products by online distance

learning companies, for-profit universi-

ties, and publishers. Thus, both institu-

tions and faculty authors are encounter-

ing new, different opportunities.

Our goal in Miami was to examine the

validity of these ideas. Among the ques-

tions considered at the symposium were

the following: What is really driving the

ownership discussion? What is the like-

lihood that faculty-developed course-

ware will produce substantial revenue?

Can college-level courses be offered with

no human interaction or intervention?

Should colleges and universities make

money, alone or in partnership with the

private sector? To what degree should

institutions seek to control the behavior

of faculty members outside of their

institutional commitment? How can

the current climate of distrust and

uncertainty be alleviated? How can policy

encourage faculty members to be engaged

in online learning, to develop interesting

applications and courses, for the benefit

of students?

Most published articles on this topic

conclude with something like the follow-

ing. “The real need is for an institution

to have a clear statement of its policy

and a mechanism to ensure that the

issue of ownership is addressed as early

as possible in the development process.”

Yet simply declaring that an institution

needs a clear policy, while such a state-

ment may be true, is not especially

helpful. Institutions are having a great

deal of difficulty trying to decide what

their policy should be, and their inability

to decide is disruptive to the internal

fabric of the institution. Most colleges

Preface

1

For centuries, there hasnever been much need tofigure out if one partyowned a course as a commodity that could besold elsewhere. But infor-mation technology and theInternet appear to havechanged the status quo.

T H E P E W S Y M P O S I A I N L E A R N I N G A N D T E C H N O L O G Y

and universities have very little under-standing of these issues. Since higher education institutions are large, highlydiffused organizations, they frequentlyhave no centralized way to focus atten-tion on how to address these issues. Instead, policy is being debated unit byunit. Even when an institution-wide policy exists, in many instances there isno strong conformity to it. Our explicitgoal in Miami was to produce a paperthat would go beyond recommendingthat institutions have a policy and wouldgive institutions some concrete adviceabout what that policy should be andwhy.

At the symposium, participants dis-cussed four cases, each chosen to raiseawareness of the issues and to stimulatediscussion. The cases are included hereto provoke the reader’s thinking as well.The Arthur Miller case and theUNext.com case represent two sides of the same issue: the transfer of intellec-tual property from individual facultymembers to organizations other than the home institution. In the former, thefaculty member is the decision-makerand meets resistance from his university.In the latter, the university is the deci-sion-maker and meets resistance fromthe faculty. The CaseNET case and theMath Emporium case represent two approaches to the commercialization of technology-mediated materials andmethodologies. In the first, entrepre-neurial faculty members take the initia-tive without institutional sanction. In thesecond, the institution has the potentialto expand an innovative approach toteaching and learning beyond its ownboundaries, but the question remains:how should this be done?

This paper, like the discussion in Miami,builds on the good work of the individu-als who participated, both virtually and

in real-time, in the symposium. Beforeour meeting, a number of them sub-mitted written answers to a series ofquestions, and their responses, elaborat-ed by the discussion, have been includedin this paper. Although not every partici-pant will agree with every statement inthis paper, both the discussion and ourgeneral conclusions have been captured.

The goal of the Pew Symposia is to approach topics related to learning and technology from a public-interest perspective. Many constituencies bringself-interested agendas to discussionsabout technology: administrators worryabout facing competitors; faculty worryabout keeping jobs; vendors worry aboutselling particular hardware and software.Our goal is to produce thoughtful analyses and discussions that serve thelarger good. Please let us know if wehave met that goal in our approach tothis very contentious issue.

2

3

W H O O W N S O N L I N E C O U R S E S A N D C O U R S E M A T E R I A L S ?

C H A P T E R / S E C T I O N N A M E

➤

Professors as Rock StarsThe Arthur Miller Casecase 1

Adapted from two articles in the Chronicle of Higher Education: Wendy R. Leibowitz, “Law Professors Told toExpect Competition from Virtual Learning,” January 21,2000, and Dan Carnevale and Jeffrey R. Young, “Who OwnsOnline Courses? Colleges and Professors Start to Sort It Out,”December 17, 1999.

In what he calls the “Hollywoodization of academia,”Arthur Levine, president of Teachers College of ColumbiaUniversity, envisions professors following in the footstepsof the late Cornell University astronomer Carl Sagan, whotalked about physics and space on television so often—and so distinctively—that his presentations became thepunch lines of Johnny Carson’s jokes on The Tonight Show.In the future, Levine predicts, faculty members whose online courses become popular will end up sitting acrossthe desk from Jay Leno.

In such an approach, a faculty member would own therights to online instructional materials and could sell access to various online colleges. In fact, the day when professors make deals like rock stars and athletes may notbe that far off. Top professors might soon sell materials toa variety of colleges—and might even hire agents toarrange television appearances and other promotions todrum up business. “There’s talent that can be making

more money than they currently are,” Levine says. “I’m

waiting for the first academic agent.” He says the best

professors will become something like free agents in a

major sports league, able to work with whomever they

choose. Except, unlike athletes, those professors will be

able to play on more than one college team at once.

The Internet is creating new opportunities for institutions

as well as faculty members at those institutions, according

to A. Michael Froomkin, a professor at the University of

Miami School of Law. “Law school is a product,” says

Froomkin, and new markets are presenting themselves. Al-

though it is costly to create virtual lectures and

seminars, the potential revenues from reaching out to

new student markets, including corporate executives,

government officials, and foreigners, could be tantalizing

to law schools, according to Froomkin.

Celebrity faculty members may find new markets for their

courses and reap the benefits, financially and profession-

ally. Froomkin calls this the Arthur-Miller-on-a-disk

model, referring to the Harvard University law professor

who has already supplied videotaped lectures for Concord

University School of Law, an online institution.

Harvard officials say Miller violated university policy by

providing course material to another law school without

permission. Miller and Concord officials maintain that

because he doesn’t teach at the virtual law school or even

interact with its students, in person or online, Miller is not

violating Harvard’s policies. He says his arrangement with

Concord is analogous to publishing a book or giving a lec-

ture on television. “You name the medium, and I’ve con-

ducted lectures through them,” he says. Miller and Robert

C. Clark, Harvard law school’s dean, are now discussing

how to handle the disagreement. They’re also reviewing

how Harvard’s policy applies in the age of the Internet.

Jack R. Goetz, the law dean at Concord, says colleges and

universities will have to loosen restrictions on their profes-

sors if they want to hang on to the best ones in the years

ahead. Restricting faculty members’ ability to teach online

will encourage them to leave, because they will see online

Harvard officials say Miller violateduniversity policy by providing coursematerial to another law school with-out permission. Miller and Concord officials maintain that because he doesn’t teach at the virtual law schoolor even interact with its students,in person or online, Miller is not violating Harvard’s policies.

4


C H A P T E R N A M E

teaching as a way to build a reputation that can attract

outside work, he says. Goetz notes that Miller is one of

about a half-dozen professors who provide course

material to Concord’s law school but don’t teach there.

Harvard is the first institution to raise objections, he says.

Comments and QuestionsSome in higher education say the issue of who owns

courses and course materials is not only about money

but also about how institutions protect their interests.

They are concerned when, after the home institution has

nourished faculty to become good faculty, competing

institutions hire the faculty as adjuncts and benefit from

that nurturing without sharing the cost. This issue is

categorized as one of conflict of commitment. Institutions

care about the faculty member who has taken advantage

of the college or university’s resources and simultaneously

uses them at a competing institution. Clearly the new

environment allows the faculty member to do such things

far more easily. The ownership issue represents an

attempt by the college or university to try to control the

faculty member’s behavior.

Here are some questions to consider:

1. One basis for objecting to this practice relates to the

traditional notion of conflict of commitment—that is,

the notion that faculty members owe their primary time

commitment to their home institution. Is this concept still

viable when courses can be captured in replicable form

and distributed on the Internet or via other media forms,

thus negating the time-conflict argument?

2. Another reason for objecting to this practice relates to

limiting competition. In this case, Miller is not competing

with his own institution, since Concord appeals to a totally

different market. If the faculty member is working for

an institution that is not in competition with his or her

home institution, should there be any restrictions on

such activity?

3. It is common practice for faculty members to teach a

course at other colleges, including those that are in the

same geographic region and that are presumably in direct

competition with the home institution. Is there anything

unique about online learning that changes the way we

should regard this situation?

4. Some say that since Harvard pays the overhead forMiller to produce a course by providing him with officespace, heat, library, and all other resources, Harvard has

a right to prevent him from selling the course to Concord,which has provided none of this overhead and intends tomake a profit. Do you agree?

5. Is there a difference between faculty who function asgenuine free agents (i.e., as independent entrepreneursnot attached to any institution) and those who operate as “pseudo” free agents (i.e., still affiliated with an insti-tution)?

6. Some believe that the issue is one of associating the Harvard name and reputation with a law school that maybe viewed as less reputable. That is, some see this as atrademark problem. If Miller were doing the same thingwith a well-regarded school, would Harvard be as unhappy? Or, conversely, what if Miller were a facultymember at a small college and invited to produce an online course at Harvard? Would that be OK?

7. If a professor truly has “star quality,” can a college oruniversity realistically expect to own a piece of the action?How will colleges and universities be able to hang on to thebest professors in the years ahead if institutions restrictprofessors’ ability to sell themselves and their courses toother providers?

8. If a college or university has traditionally allowed professors to teach at other institutions or consult withother organizations, is it justified in suddenly changing its practices when it thinks that money can be made orthat the competition is serious?

How will colleges and universities beable to hang on to the best professorsin the years ahead if institutions restrict professors’ ability to sell themselves and their courses to otherproviders?

5



➤

It’s a Huge MarketThe UNext.com Casecase 2

Adapted from Goldie Blumenstyk, “A Company Pays TopUniversities to Use Their Names and Their Professors,”Chronicle of Higher Education, June 18, 1999.

A new company, called UNext.com, is offering a selectgroup of universities a chance at Wall Street riches in return for the right to use their names and their faculty expertise for developing courses in business, engineering,and writing. The company is courting—and signing—some prestigious educational partners. Columbia Univer-sity, Stanford University, the University of Chicago, andthe London School of Economics and Political Sciencehave all signed deals. UNext.com has devised a business

plan that aims to tap some of the biggest growth areas in higher education today: corporate training, continuing education, distance learning, and the international-student market.

Based in Deerfield, Illinois, UNext.com plans to develop aseries of business-oriented courses, sell them to multina-tional and overseas corporations, and then have the corpo-rations deliver the courses to their employees worldwidevia the Internet and more traditional materials, such asbooks. The company provides universities an “opportunityto deliver education to employed people throughout theworld,” says Andrew M. Rosenfield, the Chicago entrepre-neur who is president of UNext.com. Worldwide, he adds,it’s “a huge market.”

The company was initially conceived by Rosenfield in

1997 under the umbrella of Knowledge Universe, a Cali-

fornia holding company that has interests in numerous

education and training companies and counts Michael

Milken as one of its three principal owners. A titan of Wall

Street in the 1980s, Milken later went to prison and paid a

$1-billion-plus fine for securities-law violations. (Lowell

Milken, his brother, and Larry Ellison, the chief executive

officer of Oracle, are the other major Knowledge Universe

owners.) Milken plays no active role in UNext.com, says

Rosenfield. Nonetheless, Milken’s association with the

company became a bit of an issue when the University of

Chicago was deciding whether to sign on.

Originally, Rosenfield’s fledgling venture was financed

wholly by Knowledge Universe and was known as

Knowledge University. In late 1998, however, Rosenfield

and the Knowledge Universe principals parted company;

UNext.com was spun off, with Knowledge Universe still

owning about 20 percent of UNext.com but having no

voting rights. Knowledge Universe also kept the rights to

the Knowledge University name. It plans to use the name

for its own Internet-based higher education venture, to

be aimed at individual students rather than companies.

The company is stirring debate over the ways in which

colleges and universities deploy their academic resources

and reputations for financial gain. Rosenfield’s involve-

ment became an issue, with several faculty members

openly asking whether it was appropriate for him—a

University of Chicago trustee—to personally profit from a

deal in which his company would gain credibility because

of its connections with the university. Rosenfield says that

the suggestion he was trading on the university’s reputa-

tion for his private advantage is “absurd.” The trustees

followed their usual conflict-of-interest policies in consid-

ering the deal, he says, and he did not participate.

Three of the university’s renowned economists—Gary S.

Becker, Jack Gould, and Merton H. Miller—serve on

UNext.com’s board of directors and own a stake in the

company. The dean of the law school, Daniel R. Fischel, is

UNext.com plans to develop a series of business-oriented courses, sell themto multinational and overseas corpora-tions, and then have the corporationsdeliver the courses to their employeesworldwide via the Internet and moretraditional materials, such as books.

6



also an investor. Geoffrey Stone, the University of Chica-go’s provost, dismissed any suggestion that Rosenfield’sposition or the involvement of several Chicago professorsas UNext.com board members and advisers had impairedits ability to independently evaluate the deal. “Some people, like myself, take some comfort from the fact thatthe advisory board has people on it that we respect,” he says.

Marvin Zonis, a business school professor, has some lingering concerns. “The issue of the University of Chicagolending its name to another institution to make a profit isa very problematic issue,” he says. But he also notes thatmany faculty members do something similar when theyconsult for a company. And the leaders of the businessschool, he adds, consider the deal an excellent opportunityto extend the school’s name globally.

The faculty committee examining the proposal recom-mended going ahead because of assurances that the University of Chicago’s financial terms would be at least as good as those of any other partner. Zonis notes that thepotential for a big payoff was also “a very important partof the motivation at the business school. If the rewardwere a pat on the back, it would have been a different story.”

Under the UNext.com business model, contracts makeclear that the content going to the company is comingfrom the institutions, not from any particular facultymember. UNext.com will pay the universities in return forreceiving help from faculty members to produce coursesor short lessons in topics such as how to conduct basicmarketing and how to compute net present value. Theuniversity, not the professors, will own the rights to the

intellectual property developed under the UNext.com contract. The money goes to the universities, which willthen compensate the participating faculty members underterms devised by each institution.

Under the terms of the contract, Chicago’s GraduateSchool of Business is expected to supply faculty expertiseto UNext.com in several subject areas. Although no particular professor will be compelled to participate, Stonesays the University of Chicago will consider participationwith UNext.com as part of the business school facultymembers’ teaching responsibilities, for which they will receive compensation or release time.

Students will not receive credit or degrees from the partic-ipating universities, nor will they be taught by professorsfrom those institutions. Eventually, they might receivecredit from a new institution that UNext.com plans to create, called Cardean University. All participating universities will receive limited rights to use the coursesthey and other institutions help to produce, as well as theunderlying technologies to deliver the courses.

The real money in the UNext.com deals will go to the institutions, not individual professors. And that, saysDavid Brady, associate dean at the Stanford BusinessSchool, is a great part of the company’s appeal. Universi-ties make money off patents, but “they missed out on textbooks,” he says, describing the way universities traditionally claim rights to professors’ inventions but not their books. “That’s why they’re signing,” says Brady.It’s their way of “getting a piece of the action.” UNext.comprovides a way for universities to finally profit directlyfrom the scholarly course materials that their professorsproduce. Each institution will receive a guaranteed streamof royalties that, according to some sources at the universities, would amount to a minimum of $20 millionover five to eight years.

Should the privately held UNext.com go public, the participating universities would have the right to convertthose royalties into stock, giving the institutions insideropportunities to capitalize on Wall Street’s fever for Inter-net start-ups and for-profit education companies. ThoughUNext.com would not reveal what percentage of the company each university could potentially own, Rosen-field said the collective total could be 20 percent after the

The real money in the UNext.com dealswill go to the institutions, not individualprofessors. And that, says David Brady, associate dean at the StanfordBusiness School, is a great part of thecompany’s appeal.

7



➤

initial public offering. Distance learning is opening up awhole avenue of opportunity to profit from intellectualproperty, and “universities want something out if it,” hesays.

Comments and QuestionsThe UNext.com case, in which institutions are makingbusiness arrangements with an external organization, isthe reverse of the Arthur Miller case. This relationshipwith a third party is more typical of those that colleges oruniversities have had in the past. Yet it raises interestingquestions about the relationship of the higher educationinstitution and the faculty members’ intellectual property.Under the UNext.com business model, contracts makeclear that the content going to the company comes fromthe institutions, not from any particular faculty member,and that the university, not the professors, will own therights to any intellectual property that is developed. In addition, the university will consider participation withUNext.com as part of the business school faculty mem-bers’ teaching responsibilities, for which they will receivecompensation or release time.


1. The issues surrounding the deal became especially heated at the University of Chicago because of the faculty’sunderlying anger toward the administration over finan-cially driven moves that they said could undermine theuniversity’s traditional mission. Will the deal lead to a corrosion of academic values?

2. Does the University of Chicago’s participation consti-tute a product endorsement? UNext.com will have theright to use the institution’s name and logo in a mutually-agreed-upon manner, but the contract gives the universitythe right to control how its name is used and an ability to withdraw from the deal altogether should it become dissatisfied.

3. Some faculty members at the University of Chicago remain worried about the long-term message sucharrangements send. Some professors have questionedwhether administrators with “dollar signs flashing in theireyes” are letting a desire for profit shape faculty priorities.Does that mean the market will start determining how

intellectuals should spend their time at a university?

4. Suppose Harvard’s law school dean assigned ArthurMiller to teach at Concord as part of a contractual relation-ship between the two organizations. Does this arrange-ment suggest that the university is becoming an editorialor production house and using its faculty as its source ofcontent? If UNext.com is performing that role, what valueis the university adding to the equation?

5. What are the implications when a university makes acommitment to provide content but not teach, when it disaggregates creating course content from offering thecourse for college credit?

6. Some in higher education believe that for-profit educational organizations are, in essence, “cannibalizing”traditional institutions to the organizations’ benefit and tothe institutions’ detriment. How can a college or universityprotect its own resource investments in this environment?

Under the UNext.com business model,contracts make clear that the contentgoing to the company comes from theinstitutions, not from any particularfaculty member, and that the university,not the professors, will own the rightsto any intellectual property that is developed. In addition, the universitywill consider participation withUNext.com as part of the businessschool faculty members’ teaching responsibilities, for which they will receive compensation or release time.

8



The Entrepreneurial FacultyThe CaseNET Casecase 3

Adapted from Ida Lee Wootten, “Teacher Training Gets a New Twist with Online Case Study,” Chronicle of HigherEducation, September 12, 1997.

The University of Virginia (UVA) is offering a package ofcase-based courses sold over and delivered by the Internetto colleges, universities, and school districts in NorthAmerica and overseas. Called “CaseNET,” the set of courses is offered in a case study–based format designedto build problem-solving skills and promote interdiscipli-nary teaching in elementary, middle, and high schools.Similar to the approaches used in business, law, and medicine, the cases portray scenarios that occur in cultur-ally diverse classrooms. Students gain practice in employ-ing educational theory and pick up practical knowledge in addressing real-life classroom situations. About 300 students from eleven colleges and universities and tenschool districts are currently enrolled in three courses:“Teaching Across the Content Areas,” “Standards ofLearning and Assessment,” and “Using Technology toSolve Problems in Schools.”

The colleges, universities, and schools that purchase thecourses can customize them to meet students’ needs by requiring completion of varied reading materials and proj-ects. Students can earn undergraduate or graduate creditfor the courses. Three kinds of arrangements are possible:

1. Higher education institutions buying the courses can repackage them using their own course titles and charge their own tuitions. As an example, theUniversity of Dayton uses its course titles and chargesits tuition after it pays the developer, the Curry School of Education, a fee for the CaseNET offering.Students earn credit by registering with their homeinstitutions.

2. Students can register and earn credit directly withUVA.

3. School districts can use the courses as in-servicetraining for teachers and school administrators tosatisfy recertification requirements. For those whoare already teaching, the courses provide a new kind

of field experience. Teachers gain electronic connec-

tions to people worldwide.

UVA in-state students and Virginia teachers pay $399 for

a three-credit course. Out-of-state students and teachers,

both current and prospective teachers, pay $588 for a

three-credit course. Teachers who take the course for

professional development only (no credit) pay $350 per

course.

Two faculty members and their graduate students in

the Curry School of Education developed the cases with

support from the Hitachi Foundation and AT&T. The

entrepreneurial faculty have gone outside the normal

university bureaucracy to offer these courses. They have

used UVA’s Continuing Ed structures to enroll students.

Some students are enrolled at other institutions and are

receiving credit through those institutions. In these cases,

the faculty have negotiated a fee for the other institution

to pay to them directly. Those funds have been handled

relatively “informally,” coming directly into the school

and being allocated to the faculty members with no

institutional involvement. All of this is the subject of keen

interest by the provost and other university adminis-

trators. No one seems to know quite how to handle the

process. This model of instruction has raised just about

every issue of institutional policy one can imagine—issues

that no one has considered except in this specific case.

Two UVA professors teach the courses, with the assistance

of faculty at the participating higher education institutions

and teachers and administrators at the private and public

K-12 schools in the participating districts. Instructors who

lead the courses at the participating college, university,

and school sites do not need prior Internet experience.

CaseNET provides tutorials on how to navigate the

Web and electronic course sites. Instructors are given

passwords that allow them to access teaching notes,

suggestions on analyzing cases, and tips on leading

on-site and electronic discussions. In addition, instructors

who use the courses complete Curry School training

sessions.

9



➤

Although CaseNET is delivered via the World Wide Web,video conferencing, electronic discussion groups, and e-mail, students also meet at designated times at physicallocations, where instructors guide their work. During thefirst week of class, photographs of students are postedelectronically so that participants will “know” their colleagues at other sites. Once they begin analyzing cases,students will post their case-solving suggestions on theWeb, promoting consideration of differing viewpoints.Electronic videoconferences held throughout the semester

allow discussions about the cases among faculty, teachers,administrators, and students at participating schools orinstitutions. Near the end of the course, students partici-pate in a case-solving contest. They also create case-basedprojects for their own students or for colleagues.

Comments and QuestionsCaseNET illustrates a situation in which a number of highly entrepreneurial faculty are, in essence, running abusiness from their offices—registering students for credit, collecting fees, and so on. What attitude should theinstitution take toward this activity? Should UVA step into control the faculty members’ activity, or should the university find ways to encourage their entrepreneurship?


1. Many observers are concerned that this activity is beingconducted outside the realm of the administration or out-side of an academic sanction, that faculty are negotiatingfor themselves. Does the institution have an obligation to

maintain control of this situation? If yes, how should it goabout doing so?

2. What happens if the products being produced are not of high quality? What is the impact on UVA’s reputation?

3. If the case materials generate a substantial revenuestream, how should this be divided among the interestedparties?

4. Some believe that in the information age, value will reside not in content but in reputation—that is, not inwho owns the content but in who owns the label. In thisinstance, is it problematic that UVA is not controlling itsbrand or its trademark?

5. Historically, distance education programs have hadarrangements whereby the institution works with facultyto create materials and then licenses these materials toother institutions. There is a substantial body of goodpractice on this. Isn’t the problem in this case a proceduralone, that the administration hasn’t figured out how tohandle the nontuition income stream and the licensingand sales issues?

6. Are the goals of the traditional academic program and those of a virtual program, as illustrated by CaseNet, different, even though the educational content may be the same? Do they require two different kinds of businessmodel?

CaseNET illustrates a situation inwhich a number of highly entrepre-neurial faculty are, in essence, runninga business from their offices ... ShouldUVA step in to control the facultymembers’ activity, or should the university find ways to encourage theirentrepreneurship?

10



Where Do We Go From Here?The Math Emporium Casecase 4

Adapted from Florence Olsen, “Virginia Tech’s ‘Math Emporium’ Changes Grades and Attitudes,” Chronicle of

Higher Education, October 8, 1999, and Florence Olsen,“The Promise and Problems of a New Way of TeachingMath,” Chronicle of Higher Education, October 8, 1999.

When politicians visit Virginia Tech’s Math Emporium, a

58,000-square-foot computer classroom, they see a model

of instructional productivity, a vision of a future in which

machines handle many kinds of basic undergraduate

teaching duties—and universities pay fewer professors

to lecture.

Professors who work in Virginia Tech’s Math Emporium

have always believed that this is a revolutionary way to

teach undergraduates. And they have data, they say, that

backs them up. The percentage of students earning a grade

of 2.0 or better in business calculus is up from 66 in 1996

to 78 in 1998, the second year the course was taught in the

emporium. The percentage of students who got Ds, Fs,

incompletes, or no grades at all in the course dropped

from 25.2 in the fall of 1996 to 16.4 in the fall of 1998. The

professors credit the improved grades to the emporium’s

mix of online instruction, coaching, and student-to-

student help.

Other figures appear to support the university’s claim that

it can teach more undergraduates more effectively in the

emporium than it could in traditional lecture classes.

Besides helping students keep up, the emporium has

contributed to the rise in the average grade earned in

pre-calculus, says Linda H. Scruggs, an assessment coordi-

nator. She says that the average pre-calculus grade rose

from 1.98 in the fall of 1996 to 2.41 in the fall of 1998.

Scruggs discounts critics who ascribe students’ improved

performance to grade inflation or to the better preparation

of students before they came to Virginia Tech. Only 54

percent of the 1,373 Virginia Tech students who took

pre-calculus in the fall of 1996 earned an average grade of

2.0 or better. By the fall of 1998, when 1,229 students took

pre-calculus in the emporium, 73 percent of the class

achieved a 2.0 or better.

Despite its successes, the future of the twenty-four-hour-

a-day Math Emporium is not entirely ensured, according

to some of the professors who teach there. Because a

commercial market in college-level courseware has been

slow to develop, they say, the university has been forced

to develop software on its own. But it cannot afford to do

so indefinitely.

In the fall of 1997, when the emporium opened its doors,

visitors came to Blacksburg, Virginia, to see the nearly

acre and a half of open classroom space and the 500 Apple

PowerMac computers. Now, as then, dozens of graduate-

student and undergraduate helpers can be observed

strolling among the hexagonal pods on which the

emporium computers sit. The helpers are available to

help the students who are stuck on math problems.

Fewer than a dozen of Virginia Tech’s eighty mathematics

faculty members have said they prefer not to participate

in the emporium experiment. “We could have done some-

thing smaller, I suppose, something less far-reaching,”

says Michael Williams, associate vice-president for infor-

mation systems and research computing at Virginia Tech.

“But I think the emporium was absolutely inevitable,” he

says, given the budgetary pressure the university has faced

under a pair of Republican governors, George F. Allen and

James S. Gilmore III. “We have a Governor who tells us

about every week that we’re spending too much money,

and that state schools are getting a free ride,” says

Williams. “There’s no getting away from the instructional-

productivity pressures.” But good administrators also look

at problems as opportunities, Williams says. “While we

have these pressures, they’ve also given us an opportunity

to improve our pedagogy,” he says.

John Rossi, a mathematics professor whose specialty is

function theory, directed the linear algebra course for

1,600 students last fall, assisted by student helpers and

the emporium computers, which can run either Macintosh

or Windows software. In the pre-emporium days, Rossi

says, the math department scheduled at least twenty-five

instructors to teach one or two linear algebra sections of

11



➤

forty students each. Now the professors who have been released from teaching linear algebra are being used to increase faculty contact with students in other courses, especially those taking vector geometry.

Technology advocates who approve of what Virginia Techis attempting say the Math Emporium exemplifies a trans-formation that they hope will gain momentum in highereducation. “It’s early, but I feel fairly confident that it willpick up steam,” says Carol A. Twigg, executive director of

the Center for Academic Transformation at RensselaerPolytechnic Institute. Virginia Tech’s emporium “ischanging the labor requirements” for teaching linear algebra. In doing so, Twigg says, the university has shownthat it can reduce its per-student instructional costs forthe course from $77 to $24, a labor savings of $97,000 ayear. “That’s absolutely the lowest we’ve seen,” saysTwigg, whose center has given $200,000 to Virginia Techand an equal amount to each of nine other institutions toconvert lecture courses to self-paced, online formats thatmay reduce labor costs and improve learning.

The Math Emporium has become a big draw. University ofAlabama administrators, Pennsylvania State University’spresident, and University of Idaho officials all visited thesite in the fall of 1999. Members of the Virginia Senate’sFinance Committee like the emporium so much that theyheld a luncheon there, says Robert F. Olin, chairman of theVirginia Tech Math Department. “They were looking,” hesays, “at where higher education is going.”

But not everyone is certain that the emporium’s future is

secure, says Frank S. Quinn, a mathematics professor. It

survived a difficult start-up year, Quinn says, only because

his math colleagues are “very intelligent, highly dedicated

educators” who also have programming skills. They wrote

the emporium’s online linear algebra course themselves,

in nine months. When it’s not working, he adds, they’re

the ones who fix it. But the university cannot sustain the

emporium indefinitely on extraordinary human effort,

Quinn says. Olin agrees that the lack of commercial math

software puts a burden on faculty members to design and

maintain their own programs. “One of the immense tasks

for our department,” he says, “is creating the software we

want to use.”

Currently, linear algebra is the emporium’s only complete,

interactive, online course. It has an electronic hyperlinked

textbook, self-paced tutorials, lectures on CD-ROM, and

online quizzes. Lab exercises for traditional, lecture-based

business calculus and other math courses are also avail-

able. A group of Virginia Tech faculty members is devel-

oping a Web-based pre-calculus course, which they hope

to have ready by the fall of 2001. It would replace the

outdated, commercial online textbook they are now using

to teach pre-calculus in the emporium.

“We’re still at risk if we don’t get another big course in

there that is fully automated,” Quinn says, or at least a

large course that is sufficiently automated to release addi-

tional instructors from traditional classrooms. The empo-

rium experiment “is all about resource-shifting,” he says,

and that means freeing up professors and teaching assis-

tants to give students the help they need in the emporium.

“The university has made too big an investment for us to

just twiddle our thumbs,” adds Olin. But he says the next

course will be more difficult to create than was the linear

algebra course. Although the technology was a new

challenge in creating that course, three Virginia Tech

faculty members had previously written a textbook for

teaching linear algebra to freshmen. That experience

helped give them a fast start, he says. “We went from

cavemen to experts pretty quickly.”

Olin says he wishes his department could buy math soft-

ware as easily as it can buy textbooks. “There’s just not a

whole lot out there,” he says. As department chairman, he

Universities and even textbook publishers are not well organized fordeveloping software or for handling the installation, support, and mainte-nance that are part of the cost of doing business, Quinn says. Developing an online pre-calculus course is no lesscomplex, he says, than developing aWeb browser or a graphics package.

12



has been courting book publishers, but with disappointing

results. “They only understand revenues generated from

a book,” he says. “They just don’t see where mathematical

education is going.” Yet he has had discussions with

several “software-inclined” companies, he says.

Universities and even textbook publishers are not well

organized for developing software or for handling the

installation, support, and maintenance that are part of the

cost of doing business, Quinn says. Developing an online

pre-calculus course is no less complex, he says, than

developing a Web browser or a graphics package. Back in

July 1996, educators interested in instructional product-

ivity held a meeting—the Broadmoor Roundtable, in

Colorado Springs—to discuss incentives that might help

create a commercial market for college-level instructional

software. But not much has changed since then, Olin says.

The “voluntary overload” on faculty members is a

worrisome aspect of the emporium, according to Quinn,

who wants the experiment to succeed but who says he is

mindful of “the very, very many ways for something like

this to fail.”

Instructional software issues are unlikely to be resolved

quickly, says Williams, the information systems vice-

president. However much the emporium may improve

teaching productivity, he says, he doesn’t expect to see

instructional software that can actually simulate human

help and support for another eight to ten years. “If we

want the software to help at all,” he says, “it’s got to

understand how students might misconceive what is

presented to them—and to figure that out from the

student’s response. Right now, only people do that well.”

Comments and Questions

Although Virginia Tech originally developed the Math

Emporium as a way to improve service to its students, the

end result was a replicable instructional methodology that

can be exported to other settings. This case involves a

number of issues related to the university’s opportunity

for further development. Research universities in the

United States have historically produced a significant

number of marketable outcomes, yet in general, universi-

ties have recognized that they do not have the capital or

the expertise to take these experiments into the market.

Consequently, they have sold or given away developmentsor created spin-offs. What is the best course of action toachieve institutional goals?


1. Should Virginia Tech try to commercialize and marketthis product itself, or should it work with a company to do this?

2. Sustainability of the “experiment” is an issue. If the goalis for the university to serve its own students, it needs tohave an infrastructure to sustain the program. If the intention is to take this idea and export it to others, the issues are the same but on a much grander scale. DoesVirginia Tech want to be in the business of upkeep—ofmaintaining and upgrading the software?

3. If Virginia Tech works with a company to help sustainor market the program, how can it create a partnershipthat will allow the university to have some control—forexample, to maintain academic standards?

4. Other institutions want to replicate the Math Emporiummodel. This will introduce the element of competition—that is, the commercial world will have a choice of institu-tions to partner with. Should Virginia Tech take advantageof its first-to-market position?

5. Will attention to commercializing products divert institutions from their goal to serve their students betterthan the current model?

6. What is the likelihood that a commercial enterprise willhire the talented group of Virginia Tech faculty away fromthe university to run the emporium on a large scale in acommercial environment?

Although Virginia Tech originally developed the Math Emporium as away to improve service to its students,the end result was a replicable instructional methodology that can be exported to other settings.

13

➤W H O O W N S O N L I N E C O U R S E S A N D C O U R S E M A T E R I A L S ?

Online Courses and Course Materials: The Context

Online course materials are typically developed by a faculty

member, with support from the information technology (IT)

department, for a particular course at the institution where the

faculty member is employed. Faculty members are hired and

paid to teach courses and to gather, organize, and create

course materials that facilitate the campus-based course

experience. Since the institution pays the faculty to teach

courses as a central task of employment, many in the institu-

tion assume that materials created for this task belong to the

college or university, just as commercial products or patents

developed for a company belong to the employer, not the

individual worker. Yet in the past, most colleges and universi-

ties have rarely, if ever, laid claim to the original materials

prepared by faculty for course use.

Today, many institutions appear to have taken the approach

that colleges and universities can quickly develop online

courses, since the school has the source of course content at

hand: the individual faculty member. This sudden recognition

of the faculty as a resource to create a tangible product is new

to the higher education community, brought on by the recog-

nition of the Internet as a distribution medium to export the

institution’s courses and degrees to a wider audience. This

new dynamic has broken the well-established, tacit approval

given to the faculty to sell original work as long as such selling

does not interfere with the fulfillment of the faculty’s teaching,

research, and service responsibilities.

It is this seemingly sudden claim of ownership of faculty-

developed content as a Web “product” that seems to have

created the conflict that the symposium addressed. In the

past, instructors created exercises, essays, experiments, labs,

and other original content to teach existing courses at an insti-

tution, and they used this content to develop textbooks and

teaching ancillaries (such as instructors’ manuals, workbooks,

study guides, and test banks) without institutional claims of

ownership. Typically, a faculty member creates a textbook on

his or her own time. Although the institution may reward the

faculty member for the achievement, the work itself is done

at the instigation of the individual faculty member and for

the faculty member’s own benefit. Faculty members are not

specifically tasked by their institutions to create the work.

The college or university usually makes no claim to the

content and rarely opposes the publication process.

Whereas the creation of online course materials is in many

ways analogous to the creation of textbooks, in other ways it

is not. The textbook analogy holds true if the faculty member

acts independently and does not call on the institution for

support. Unlike the writing of textbooks, the development

of online course materials typically involves a significant

investment of resources by the institution. Even if the faculty

member has not been specifically commissioned to do the

work, the faculty member is likely to have asked the institu-

tion for technical support (server time, use of institutionally

licensed software), staff support (instructional designers,

html programmers, text editors, graphics specialists, research

assistants), and administrative support (copyright clearance

of third-party materials). Thus some argue that the sudden

institutional claim of ownership of faculty-developed content

has arisen because of the significant contribution of institu-

tional resources involved in the creation of the online course

materials. Others respond that one cannot use these invest-

ments as a criterion since nearly all works at a college or uni-

versity are created by using substantial institutional resources.

Why would an institution suddenly assert its ownership of

something that it had seemingly not valued in the past? One

reason may be a belief that online courses and course materi-

als represent a potential source of revenue from which the

institution should benefit. In the words of the Chronicle ofHigher Education, “The growth of distance education and

the widespread use of multimedia course materials have

Why would an institution suddenly assertits ownership of something that it hadseemingly not valued in the past? One reason may be a belief that online courses and course materials represent a potential source of revenue from whichthe institution should benefit.

14


convinced some administrators and faculty members thatthey’re sitting on gold mines: It might be possible to packagecollege courses and sell them over the Internet or on disks.”1

Even though the chances that any given product would beprofitable may be one in a million, institutions do not want tobe caught in the position of having a faculty member generatea highly successful course without the college or universityreaping some of the reward.

A second reason for institutions’ sudden interest seems to bea fear that faculty members will package their courses andmake them available in multiple markets, often in competi-tion with the college or university that employs the faculty. Institutions are worried about the faculty member who has,according to the college or university, taken advantage of theinstitutional resources and is now using them at another

college or university where there may be a conflict of interest,whether simultaneously or after leaving the home institution.Asserting ownership of courses represents an attempt by theinstitution to try to control competition.

While colleges and universities are uneasy about giving awaythe e-equivalent of Gatorade or subsidizing their competition,faculty members have their own set of anxieties. Some, likeYork University professor David Noble, view the creation ofonline courses as a thinly veiled effort on the part of adminis-trators and their corporate brethren to use the Internet to automate professors’ work and thus to eliminate the facultyfrom the educational experience. In Noble’s words:

Once faculty put their course material online, theknowledge and course design skill embodied in thatmaterial is taken out of their possession, transferredto the machinery and placed in the hands of the administration. The administration is now in a posi-tion to hire less skilled, and hence cheaper, workers to

deliver the technologically prepackaged course. It also

allows the administration, which claims ownership

of this commodity, to peddle the course elsewhere

without the original designer’s involvement or even

knowledge, much less financial interest. The buyers

of this packaged commodity, meanwhile, other

academic institutions, are able thereby to contract

out, and hence outsource, the work of their own

employees and thus reduce their reliance upon their

in-house teaching staff.

Most important, once the faculty converts its courses

to courseware, their services are in the long run no

longer required. They become redundant, and when

they leave, their work remains behind. In Kurt

Vonnegut’s classic novel Player Piano the ace

machinist Rudy Hertz is flattered by the automation

engineers who tell him his genius will be immortal-

ized. They buy him a beer. They capture his skills on

tape. Then they fire him.2

Noble’s views may appear to be extreme, but they reflect a

widespread faculty concern that professors will be replaced in

whole or in part. A recent American Federation of Teachers

report on technology in higher education warns, “A profes-

sion already afflicted with an extraordinarily high under-

employment of its members—45 percent are part-time—

will experience further decline as thousands retire in the

coming years and are not replaced by younger members of

the profession, but by desktop workstations, courseware,

‘self-paced learning,’ large multi-site distance learning

classes, and a re-engineered capital-to-labor ratio.”3

Participants at the Miami symposium thus began their

discussion by examining the two scenarios that are contribut-

ing to the state of high anxiety in higher education today:

1. How likely is the Chronicle’s “gold mine” scenario?

Under what circumstances would it occur?

2. How likely is Noble’s “player piano” scenario? Under

what circumstances would it occur?

But before turning to that examination, the participants found

it useful to clarify some of the terminology surrounding this

issue. In the ongoing discussion about course ownership,

people frequently use the terms course and course materials

more or less interchangeably. In other cases, they make a

distinction between the two. Here are some examples:

• Faculty own course materials but not courses.

Some view the creation of online coursesas a thinly veiled effort on the part of administrators and their corporatebrethren to use the Internet to automateprofessors’ work and thus to eliminate thefaculty from the educational experience.

15

W H O O W N S O N L I N E C O U R S E S A N D C O U R S E M A T E R I A L S ? ➤

• Faculty own course materials and courses.

• Institutions own course materials.

• Institutions own courses but not course materials.

• Institutions own courses and course materials.

This lack of precision contributes to the current state of confusion and uncertainty.

Participants at the symposium were asked, “Do you see a distinction between courses and course materials?” Almosteveryone did see a distinction, but at first it was hard for themto agree on what differentiates the two terms. After a certainamount of discussion, the participants agreed to define coursematerials as the fixed expression of ideas and resources thatare used as the basis of a course. These materials, all agreed,are readily and instantly subject to copyright protection.

Course materials are used to accomplish the following purposes:

• To explain course content

• To illustrate course concepts

• To illuminate certain portions of a course

• To convey the content of the course as a means for achieving course goals

Examples of course materials include text, images, diagrams,graphs, a full-blown multimedia presentation, instructors’notes, exercises designed for online collaboration, Web-readycontent, multimedia developed for Web distribution (flashanimation, Java applets, video clips, audio), individual andcollaborative exercises, readings, bibliographies, lectures, exercises, simulations, and group projects.

The participants also noted that course materials may includecommercially available materials such as textbooks or learn-ingware or materials that have typically been prepared by theinstructor of record and not commercialized, materials suchas a syllabus and class notes. Other creators of materials include instructional designers and students. In fact, in manycourses, course materials consist of a mix of original materialsdeveloped by the faculty member and content provided bypublishers, developers, and other authors. Any given coursemay be made up of course materials derived from multiple independent sources, thus complicating the ability for oneperson or institution to assert ownership.

In an online environment, course materials take on greaterimportance. In a physical classroom, an instructor can meetwith students and have no materials, yet he or she can still

deliver the course. In cyberspace, that is more difficult.Course materials begin to embody or encapsulate many of the processes of the physical classroom.

The symposium participants next considered the question,“Can course materials become a course?” Some said yes. Hereare some examples of the view that course materials can“morph” into a course:

• The multiple components of syllabi, readings, biblio-graphies, lectures, exercises, simulations, and group projects collectively make up the course.

• Course materials are part of a course, and when all thematerials have been gathered, the total is a course.

• Illustrations mounted on a course Web page are coursematerials. If an instructor goes on to develop an entireWeb site devoted to this course, at some point it becomesan online course.

• The term course implies that a comprehensive set of materials has been developed and combined in such away as to substantiate a semester-long program of study.

Other participants said no, course materials cannot turn into a course, pointing out that a course includes other significantelements:

• Interactions. A course consists of the complex interac-tions—between faculty and students, between studentsand materials, and among students—that constitute thelearning experience. In an online course, technologyhelps to facilitate those experiences through chat ses-sions, threaded discussions, student projects, and so on.

• Faculty design. A course is a planned program of studywith both broad and specific goals and with strategies forachieving those goals. A faculty member designs a learn-ing process to assist the student in mastering the subject

In an online environment, course materials take on greater importance. In a physical classroom, an instructor canmeet with students and have no materials,yet he or she can still deliver the course.In cyberspace, that is more difficult.

16


matter of a course. It is that faculty expertise that institu-tions buy when they hire a faculty member, whether full-or part-time. To “offer a course” means the same thingas to “teach a class.” Thus we do not speak of even themost complete textbook as a “course.” Courses includeinstruction that organizes, explicates, and supplementsthe course materials. In the current (and short-term future) state of artificial intelligence, that provider of instruction will be a human being.

• Constant change. One could argue that there is not, neverwas, and never will be a course—only instances of various groups of individuals joining together to discuss,and hopefully learn about, some particular body ofknowledge. Like Heraclitus’s river, a course is never thesame. From year to year the actual content changes to reflect different instructors’ temperaments and idiosyn-crasies, changing knowledge in the field, and choices ofancillary materials such as handouts, textbooks, andreading lists.

• Institutional sanction. Courses are offered as part of aninstitution’s curriculum—that is, they involve more thanthe faculty member’s design. They consist of an institu-tionally defined scope and sequence of content for whichthe institution grants credit or in other ways recognizesstudent achievement. The authority to register students,collect tuition, and award credit is the responsibility ofthe institution created to perform those functions. An institution sanctions, schedules, describes, and “markets” the course and records the outcomes eachtime the course is offered.

In summary, the symposium participants decided that courses include five distinct components:

1. Content—the subject matter of calculus, Spanish, biology,and so on

2. Course materials—to illustrate or explain the content

3. A planned program of study— the structure of the course,including learning goals and strategies for achieving them

4. Planned and spontaneous interactions—between facultyand students, students and materials, students and students

5. An institution or organization—to offer the course, marketit, and award credit

The distinction between courses and course materials is important because it relates to the two primary drivers of theownership discussion: the fear or enthusiasm, depending on

your point of view, that online courses are commodities thatcan be packaged and sold elsewhere. Although it is clear thatcourse materials can be bought and sold elsewhere, this doesnot seem to be true for courses—that is, can courses be“owned,” or can they only be “offered”? And if we are talkingabout packaging and selling course materials, the implicationis that all we’re really discussing is whether or not institutionsshould go into the publishing business.

Let us now turn to our examination of the two scenarios in detail.

The growth of distance education and the widespread use of

multimedia course materials have convinced some administra-

tors and faculty members that they’re sitting on gold mines: It

might be possible to package college courses and sell them over

the Internet or on disks.

When the symposium participants were asked about the like-

lihood of the gold mine scenario, there was universal agree-

ment: most online courses and the materials contained within

them are not valuable enough in economic terms to result in

much, if any, corresponding pecuniary rewards. It is unlikely

that even a small percentage of faculty or institutions will

experience any commercial success whatsoever, just as it is

unlikely that most faculty members’ lecture notes will become

successful textbooks, though with help from a good publisher,

some will. The agreed-upon estimate of those courses that

may be successful was less than 1 percent.

Selling course materials is different from offering distance-

learning courses. When an institution uses online learning

to reach new students who are not on campus, these new

students are, in fact, the institution’s students. online learning

expands the definition of “student population.” Certainly, if

an institution is serving its students, it should be able to re-

cover its costs and reinvest any excess revenue in the institu-

tion’s mission. However, none of the symposium participants

viewed the development of off-campus markets as a potential

gold mine. Participants commented that those with significant

experience in distance learning have found that any excess

revenue generated is relatively modest. And as the field

becomes more competitive, it is questionable how many

institutions will be able to do more than recover their costs.

If an institution moves toward developing and selling pack-

aged intellectual products that are disengaged from a struc-

tured and accountable educational experience, that endeavor

is not much different from selling textbooks or instructional

software without offering a full learning experience. The

institution simply becomes a publisher in competition with

other commercial publishers. A fundamental question is thus

whether colleges and universities have the talent, personnel,

and business mentality to pursue commercial ventures.

Universities have a history of running ventures that lose

money or at best break even (e.g., hospitals and universitypresses). More developers, publishers, and corporate interestsare entering the higher education market and looking at potential crossovers between the traditional higher educationstudent, the corporate employee, and the consumer market.Course development is becoming a competitive and fast-moving industry.

The possibility that faculty and institutions will develop top-quality content for Internet distribution faces significanthurdles:

• Higher education is not skilled at generating business.The executive leaders and decision-makers in higher education are generally not knowledgeable about the ITindustry and the requirements of product development.They lack awareness of the potential learningware market. Most educators have little experience with developing business plans. Higher education also lacks a track record in successfully developing products.

• A high-quality online course differs significantly from a traditional classroom course and requires a range of personnel and skills not often found within the college oruniversity. It is not clear that our historic institutions ofhigher education have the mind-set, the venture capital,or the particular skill sets required to build the “killerapps” that are most likely to dominate Net-based learn-ing. Putting a syllabus, or course notes, on the Web orexchanging e-mail with students is only remotely relatedto designing compelling learning applications.

• The institution must be willing to fight the recruiting andsalary battles that currently plague the Internet and mediaindustries. The key asset of a production house in devel-oping educational technology and media-based products


17

The Gold Mine Scenario

A fundamental question is thus whethercolleges and universities have the talent,personnel, and business mentality to pursue commercial ventures.

18


is the personnel. Such development is a creative process,and creative staff are difficult to recruit and retain. Theinstitution may spend time and dollars developing aquality production staff just to see it recruited away tohigher-paying jobs with stock options.

• The institution must establish a strong business-development staff and an incentive structure that is foreign to most colleges and universities. An internal commercial venture will rely on a working relationshipbetween the business unit and the faculty members ofthe institution. The difficulties that exist between the editorial staff of traditional text publishers and the distributed learning groups within those publishingcompanies do not bode well for a cordial and productiveworking relationship between faculty and an internal college or university business enterprise.

• The cost and the skill set required to produce compellinglearning experiences on the Net suggest that a few “pub-lishers” will dominate the marketplace. Faculty membersare not trained and have little experience in developingmultimedia content for online distribution. A new set of skills and techniques must be developed by facultydedicated to online courses. The institution must alsodevelop the infrastructure necessary to enforce designspecifications to ensure high-quality, consistent coursepreparation. Are administrators ready to examine thestandards by which faculty contributions are measured?

• Those faculty and staff with such skills are more likely tobe attracted to private industrial efforts with all the atten-dant lures of R&D money, stock options, etc. Are there anybest-selling authors (including faculty authors—CarlSagan, e.g.) who choose to use the institution to help create, develop, or market their products? Faculty who aremajor participants in the development of significant online course development projects are likely to do so in anextra-institutional role in a private, commercial venture.

• There is a large disparity between “corporate speed” and“college speed.” Educational institutions would need tolearn to move much more quickly in order to be compet-itive. Current decision-making structures on campus—or the lack of them—would form an obstacle. Decisionsto change are frequently made by a faculty committee,and the committee system tends to support the old way.Timing is generally set by the institution, not by the customer. Institutions would need to make major adaptations in operating procedures.

• Venture capitalists are unlikely to invest in higher

education. Without the expectation of profit, private

investors and entrepreneurs will not make the invest-

ments and take the risks needed to create and market

a new technology.

Finally, should colleges and universities be in the course-

development and course-distribution business for users

other than their own students? Each university will have to

ask whether its courseware production is sufficiently related

to its basic academic purpose so as to qualify for tax-exempt

treatment. Questions about the desirability of forming for-

profit subsidiaries or affiliates to undertake course production

or distribution can be expected from all of higher education’s

stakeholders.

There is a huge distinction to be made between generating

revenues to support the institutional mission and to cover

operational costs and turning a profit on an investment. In

the present climate, colleges and universities must seek

creative ways to generate new sources of revenue to fund the

activities that are core to their mission. While management

of the modern college or university requires wise business

practices, its status as a nonprofit institution is not funda-

mentally changed. Higher education institutions do not

operate on the corporate model, which is bent on gaining

the highest-possible return on investment, evaluated through

the use of price/earnings ratios and similar productivity

measures. Colleges and universities measure their value and

worth by the quality of educational experience they provide,

by the nature of the research they generate, and by the

credentials of the faculty they recruit and retain.

Institutions of higher education must uphold their responsi-

bilities to their equivalent of shareholders: faculty, students,

alumni, and citizens of their state. Colleges and universities

are institutions for teaching, research, and service. If, in

the process of advancing those ideals, the institution is able

to generate income from sources ranging from tuition to

T-shirts, the “profits” are not the source of serious ethical

quandaries. As long as the activity is pursued in furtherance

of the institutional mission of advancing knowledge and

scholarship, the generation of revenues remains an important

but secondary objective. The more that colleges and universi-

ties encroach on other, usually commercial functions, such as

publishing, the more they are at risk of losing the privileges

(e.g., state support, nonprofit status) that support their

teaching, research, and service missions.

19


Once faculty put their course material online, the knowledgeand course design skill embodied in that material is taken out of their possession, transferred to the machinery and placed inthe hands of the administration. . . . Most important, once thefaculty converts its courses to courseware, their services are inthe long run no longer required.

The symposium participants were asked: “How likely is the‘player piano’ scenario? Under what circumstances would it occur?” Their responses ranged from “highly unlikely” to“silly” to “utter nonsense.” Their reasons included the following:

• online courses require much greater faculty involvementand interaction with students. Faculty teaching online courses report a higher level of interaction between themselves and their students than they do in the classroom. The new technology-driven courses apparently will have equal or greater need for human interaction, not less.

• There is a natural limit to the number of people who can interact effectively in a particular course.

• Courses tend to be very idiosyncratic as opposed to standardized.

• People don’t go to college to get “canned courses.” Students demand a quality experience that includes ameasure of interaction with an instructor. The need forsomeone with the expertise and authority to guide andfacilitate the experience and promote interaction amongpeers in the class is still essential.

• online courses (at least the good ones) use the Internet to enable and facilitate interaction between faculty andstudents and to bring students into learning communi-ties where they can work together. Whereas the Internetcan function as a publishing environment—it can storeand retrieve information—the real power of the Internetis as a means of bringing people together around ideas. It is a communications tool more than a publishing tool.

• Although course materials are infinitely scalable, coursesrequire a reasonable faculty-student ratio to ensure goodinteraction.

• online learning presents an experience different fromthat of the traditional classroom paradigm, and it re-quires a different teaching approach and a modified rolefor the instructor, not the elimination of the instructor.

All the symposium participants agreed that faculty roles arechanging. One participant pointed out that after the inventionof the printing press, faculty feared they would lose their jobsif students started getting their knowledge from books. Thisfear proved to be unfounded. Faculty are still here, but the nature of education has changed.

Online education is shifting toward a much more active environment, and faculty need to be there to guide thisprocess. A good faculty member adds value to a student’slearning experience, but that contribution is not in deliveringlectures or even in assembling learning material. Instructorsare much more than content creators. Indeed, few are eventhat. Most instructors are dedicated not to developing coursematerials but to organizing course materials, guiding studentsin their study, facilitating discussions and the shared creationof knowledge, and assessing students’ learning accomplish-ments. These responsibilities are no less important in thepresence of technology than in its absence.

As long as faculty define their value solely by the lectures theygive, they will believe that with technology they may not benecessary and they can be replaced. Learning is much morethan attending a lecture, however. Institutions need to workwith faculty to develop and reward their skills within this newenvironment. What people value today is faculty members’ability to control content; what we will value tomorrow is theirability to lead learning communities.

The Piano Player Scenario

After the invention of the printing press,faculty feared they would lose their jobs if students started getting their knowledgefrom books.This fear proved to be unfounded.

20


At the same time, higher education is beginning to see new,technology-mediated ways of organizing courses. These include many of the functions that are typically handled by theinstructor and that can be replicated. As an example, remedialmath software produced by Academic Systems organizescourse materials, guides students in their study, tracks students’ progress, and assesses their learning through inter-active testing. In one application, Rio Salado College is triplingthe number of students served by one instructor by using thissoftware package; it is also showing greater success rates onthe part of students. These highly sophisticated softwarepackages appear to be best suited to high-demand, introduc-tory subjects.

New forms of online learning may open the opportunity to redefine faculty work and to reallocate faculty resources.For example, fewer faculty members may be needed to teachintroductory courses or big lecture courses that can be betterdelivered through innovative technologies. Who would mourn that loss? Very few faculty members like to teach these courses, and an equally small number of students like to attend them. Faculty members who might otherwise havebeen assigned to teach such a course may instead teach small sections of students in order to review their work more closelyor upper-level courses in which individual attention is morecritical. Through a reallocation of faculty time in connectionwith the large-scale deployment of technology, the institutionnot only should be able to educate more students and generatemore tuition revenue but also should be able to develop better-quality programs and educational experiences for allstudents.

Symposium participants observed that in many cases, worriesabout intellectual property mask faculty members’ deeperconcerns about the changing environment of higher educa-tion, an environment that seems to require constant adjust-ment. These concerns include

• negative reactions to changing faculty roles and increasing competition in the higher education market;

• unfamiliarity with the technology itself;

• worries that the ATM-MTV generation thinks, “I can do it myself without faculty guidance”;

• stress over increased workload;

• dissatisfaction with compensation (i.e., faculty want financial rewards in the absence of other rewards);

• a feeling that huge risks are involved in undertakingthese pursuits; and

• discomfort with the increased visibility and account-ability of an online environment.

These concerns are directly related both to job security (howcan I adapt my talents and experience to an online educationalenvironment?) and to the change in what has been a solitary

task (teaching) to a collaborative task with multiple elementsand multiple players, often with interests that may be at odds,thus accelerating the potential for conflict.

The dispute over intellectual property is symptomatic of alarger problem—the redefinition of the teaching mission andobjectives of our institutions of higher education. Discussionssurrounding intellectual property issues can and should be ameans to an end: resolving the conflicts involved in the larger,more serious problem of redefining institutional missions and our relationships with other not-for-profit and for-profit institutions in a new higher education landscape and developing policies that contribute to the formation of thesenew relationships.

Fewer faculty members may be needed toteach introductory courses or big lecturecourses that can be better deliveredthrough innovative technologies.Whowould mourn that loss? Very few facultymembers like to teach these courses, andan equally small number of students liketo attend them.

21


A primary obstacle that can get in the way of developing goodpolicies is the expectation that the law (or lawyers) can pro-vide an answer to what institutions should be doing. On manycampuses, lawyers are being asked, in effect, to create policy.Several of the lawyers at the symposium reminded partici-pants that practicing law is, to a large extent, about risk analysis: lawyers can explain the risks involved in any courseof action, but they cannot make the decision whether or not to assume that risk. Quite often, lawyers feel that it is theirobligation to discourage institutions from taking risks.Lawyers should not be allowed to make policy. Institutionsmust first decide what they want and where they want to go,and only then should they seek help from lawyers to craft avehicle to help them implement those goals.

Still, at first glance, ownership of course materials appears tobe a legal issue. After all, copyright is a legal term. But despitethe many articles and monographs asserting what the law saysabout this issue, the fact is that the law is indeterminate on thematter of ownership of courses and course materials. Let usbriefly examine the law and why there is a lack of clarity.4

CopyrightCopyright subsists in original creative works that are fixed for more than transitory duration in a tangible medium of expression. The subject matter of copyright comprises literaryworks, including computer software; audiovisual works; musical works; sound recordings; pictorial, graphic, and

sculptural works; choreography or pantomime; and architec-tural works. Copyright exists the moment the work is fixed.Registration of the work is not required but is advantageousto the author if enforcement becomes necessary.

Educators have long made copyrightable works the staple oftheir profession. Books, treatises, scholarly papers, coursematerials, syllabi, overhead transparencies, and lecture notesare all within the subject matter of copyright. Digitized versions of these materials are also copyrightable, as are newhybrid creations such as multimedia materials, Web pages,and educational software.

The Author, the Owner, and ControlGenerally, the author of a work is the individual who fixes the expression. The author of a copyrighted work is grantedseveral exclusive rights: the right to make reproductions of the work, to distribute the work, to create derivative works, to publicly display or perform the work, and to authorize anyof these acts. The “default” rules for copyright ownership areless than clear. In copyright law, the initial owner of the copyright will be the work’s author.

Works Made for HireIn the case of works made for hire, the 1976 statute providesthat the employer of the individual who creates the work isconsidered the author and holds the rights unless there is anagreement to the contrary. This provision allocates initialownership of the work to the employer rather than to the creator.

Agency LawThe test as to whether a work is made for hire is based onprinciples of agency law. In general, if the creator of the workmeets the criteria expected for a regular employee, the workwill be considered made for hire. Factors that point to the creator being a regular employee may include income taxwithholding by the employer, withholding for benefits or benefits paid by the employer, a working schedule set by theemployer, materials and equipment provided by the employerfor use in preparing the work, a long-term project relationshipbetween the employer and the worker, and the right of theemployer to assign projects to the worker.

Can the Law Provide the Answer?

Lawyers feel that it is their obligation todiscourage institutions from taking risks.Lawyers should not be allowed to makepolicy. Institutions must first decide whatthey want and where they want to go,and only then should they seek help fromlawyers to craft a vehicle to help them implement those goals.

22


Under the agency principles applied to works made for hire,

college and university educators appear to meet the criteria

for regular employees. They generally have long-term

relationships with the institution, which has the right to

assign them particular projects and tasks and which can

dictate, to some extent, their working schedule. Most college

and university educators are subject to income tax with-

holding and receive benefit packages from or through the

institution. Additionally, most of the course materials and

scholarship produced in higher education is generated with

resources provided by the institution.

The Academic ExceptionSeveral older court opinions hold that college and university

educators are not employees for purposes of the works-

made-for-hire doctrine. These opinions point to the general

academic practice of allowing educators to retain the rights in

scholarship and other materials they produce. These opinions

and subsequent commentary also suggest that principles of

academic freedom dictate this result: academic freedom of

thought and expression might be unduly curtailed if colleges

and universities could control academic output in the manner

that large corporations control the output of their employees.

The majority of these cases, however, were decided under the

1909 Copyright Act, which has since been superseded by a

complete revision of the copyright statutes in 1976. Thus,

there is some question as to whether the “academic excep-

tion” to the work-made-for-hire doctrine survived the

revision of the law.

Therefore, there is a legitimate question as to the status of

materials created by educators in institutions of higher learn-

ing, since the materials may or may not be works made for

hire. One symposium participant, a non-lawyer, argued

strenuously that there is, in effect, a default position in the law

—that the creation of instructional materials is clearly work

made for hire. In other words, he argued, though most institu-

tions follow the default practice that the instructor owns those

materials he or she creates, the default position in law is that

the institution owns them. Indeed, courts are ruling that

teaching materials are works made for hire within the scope

of faculty employment. Odds are that judges will rule these

are works made for hire because the teacher exception to the

work made for hire is not strong.

The lawyers at the symposium, however, pointed out that

the law does not provide “an answer.” Rather this issue is a

matter of interpretation of existing statute and will get

resolved in the courts, so we cannot say with certainty whatthe default position is. One lawyer said that there may be a default position in the law but that we don’t know what it is.Another lawyer felt a bit more certain about what the defaultposition is, but he made the same point: because we differabout what the default is, the issue will get resolved in court,with lawyers on both sides vigorously arguing their points.

As an example, consider the question of the degree of agency:to what extent is a faculty member operating as a free agent(e.g., he or she can hire an outside consultant) or operating asan employee of the institution. The more the faculty memberis constrained, the more the product is a work made for hireand vice versa. Consider the differences between developing ahighly individualized graduate course in an area of specializa-tion and developing an introductory course with a commonsyllabus and final examination. And consider two lawyers arguing the case. An analogous situation is in the area of laborlaw, where the question of whether faculty members are managers or employees has been resolved differently in different situations.

Part of the reason there is so much unease in higher educationabout this issue is because there is no default position, no definite “answer” to the question of course ownership. As a result, existing policies at colleges and universities varygreatly. There are three basic approaches, each with its ownset of qualifications.

1. Some institutions assert ownership over the copyrightableworks of their faculty, citing the agency principles of worksmade for hire. They may qualify the assertion of ownership—for example, only when the work is software or other specificmedia; only when projects are completed with the use of substantial institutional resources; only when the work can bepatented or offers some prospect of royalties.

The lawyers at the symposium pointed out that the law does not provide “an answer.” Rather this issue is a matter ofinterpretation of existing statute and willget resolved in the courts, so we cannotsay with certainty what the default position is.

23


2. Some institutions allow faculty members to continue to assertownership over their copyrightable works. Again, institutionsmay qualify the ownership by asserting the college or univer-sity’s right to perpetual, nonexclusive, royalty-free use of thematerials in its internally administered programs; by estab-lishing percentages of royalties distributed to the baseline of institutional costs that must be recovered before facultymembers can share in the financial return; or by requiring asplit-royalty policy, in which the author returns to the institu-tion all royalties for products sold to students at the college oruniversity.

3. Some institutions attempt to allocate ownership via contract.It is critical to remember that the assertions of institutions orof faculty are immaterial to the actual authorship of the works.Authorship is dictated by the copyright statute—private parties are not able to change the allocation created by Congress, even if that allocation is unclear. Yet even thoughprivate parties cannot change the choices of Congress regard-ing authorship, they can allocate ownership of a work via con-tract. All or part of the copyright can be transferred betweenparties, and the terms of the transfer can be made subject tolimitations of time, geography, or usage. This means that thescope of the transfer or license can be adapted to the needs ofthe parties—the license may be as broad or as narrow as theychoose. Additionally, although private parties cannot usuallyalter a determination of authorship, they may secure theirownership expectations under uncertainty by providing forcontingent allocations. For example, if a particular college oruniversity wants to make certain that ownership is allocatedto the faculty creator of a work, the parties can agree that evenif a work is deemed a work made for hire, the institution willassign its rights in the work to the faculty member. This agree-ment, however, must be in place before work is completed.

Although this issue gets categorized as one of ownership—forexample, the American Association of University Professors(AAUP) has issued a statement arguing that faculty shouldown their materials, whereas the presidents of the AmericanAssociation of Universities (AAU) took the position that universities own the materials—several of the lawyers at thesymposium commented that they try to move people awayfrom posing the question as one of ownership. If someoneasks the question “Who owns it?” the law is going to say simply, “I own it” or “you own it.” That result is a wholly unsatisfactory response for all parties concerned. Ownershipis in some ways a red herring. Since the bundle of copyrightrights can be divided up, one can own something and have literally no right to use it, having given away all the rights except ownership.

The college or university is not working in its best interest toassert work made for hire; the faculty is not working in its bestinterest to assert ownership. A far more productive approachis to focus on who needs to do what with a work rather thanwho needs to own it. The notion of unbundling of rights hasbecome popular in regard to this topic. The publication “Own-ership of New Works at the University: Unbundling of Rightsand the Pursuit of Higher Learning,” by the Consortium forEducational Technology for University Systems (CETUS), includes a well-written explanation of this approach.5 Ratherthan advancing an either-or position that pits institutional interests against faculty interests (and professional staff interests against faculty interests), the unbundling conceptappears to be fair to all parties.

Although at first the unbundling approach appears to offer arational solution to the issue, participants at the symposiumcame up with a radically different—and infinitely simpler—solution. They did so by treating the intellectually property issue not as a legal issue but as an academic issue. By steppingback and asking themselves a different question—”What dowe want to encourage on our campuses?”—they reached anew position.

➤

The college or university is not working inits best interest to assert work made forhire; the faculty is not working in its bestinterest to assert ownership. A far moreproductive approach is to focus on whoneeds to do what with a work rather thanwho needs to own it.

24


The symposium participants began with the assumption that

institutions want to encourage faculty participation in the

development and delivery of technology-based instruction. If

so, institutions should proceed cautiously in asserting owner-

ship of online course materials, especially when previous

policy or practice has been to the contrary. Probably one of

the most demoralizing things an institution could do would be

to change the intellectual property ownership policy by say-

ing, “We used to let you own your course materials, but that

was before we realized there was money to be made off them.”

To encourage faculty to invest considerable time, thought,

creativity, and energy in the development and delivery of

technology-based instruction, institutions need to ensure

faculty members that the results of their investment belong to

them, not the institution. Otherwise, there is little incentive

for a faculty member to make that investment. As one

symposium participant put it, the fastest way to derail any

conversation about faculty engagement in course materials

development is to assert that these are works made for hire.

This is true whether or not the materials are considered to

have commercial value. If an institution starts with the

assumption that for the vast majority of materials produced,

the commercial market will be nil to little, ownership will be

less significant than compensation for the time spent in

producing the materials. If an institution starts with the

assumption that the materials are likely to have commercial

value, denying faculty both ownership and royalty rights may

pose problems in motivating faculty to produce the materials

in the first place, since good materials require a lot of work.

Faculty who are well compensated and able to share in the

commercial success of their work will be motivated to create.

It is difficult enough to persuade overworked and underpaid

(in their view) faculty members to polish original content for

publication (online or textbook content), much less to go

through a long negotiation process with the administration

regarding ownership and faculty remuneration. An institution

should treat these technology innovations as original contri-

butions to the betterment of education and should be gener-

ous and forward-thinking by offering attractive incentives for

such activities. More liberal policies will incent faculty to

more actively pursue the creation of original online coursematerials.

A professor who invents a better way to teach online or learnthrough technology might be deemed as having fulfilled his or her commitment to the institution. Beyond the fulfillmentof teaching duties for the specific course in question, he or she should be free to market the unique creation to others and reap the rewards. Colleges and universities should act as catalysts, as a rule, and give their professors the freedom to develop and own course materials, as an incentive to improving education for all.

Administrators should also commit themselves to supportingfaculty who must manage the process of obtaining the permis-sions to use the copyrighted materials of others in Web-enhanced courses. Far too many “Web Course Agreements”require faculty to “warrant” that the course materials do notinfringe on copyright and to agree to “indemnify” the institu-tion in the event of a lawsuit for defamation or copyright infringement or any other form of liability arising from theuse of the course materials. Agreements that seek to formallyshift the burden of liability and responsibility for copyrightmanagement are not encouraging to the faculty member whois on the fence or is skeptical about the benefits of online instruction.

If an institution has made a substantial contribution to thecreation of course materials, it may want to hold on to thoserights that it needs in order to preserve the integrity of its

What Do We Want to Accomplish?

To encourage faculty to invest consider-able time, thought, creativity, and energyin the development and delivery of tech-nology-based instruction, institutions need to ensure faculty members that theresults of their investment belong to them,not the institution.

25


academic program. In these specific cases, the college or university and the creator(s) could sign a standard agreementthat allocates (licenses) to the college or university the abilityto exercise certain rights, without obtaining permission fromthe copyright owner:

• The right, on a limited, nonexclusive basis, of colleaguesand students in the author’s own department, on his orher own campus, or on campuses within a large univer-sity system to make reproductions of the work to use inteaching, scholarship, and research

• The right to control whether the institution’s name or logo is displayed in association with the work

• The right to require an appropriate acknowledgment of institutional support of the creation of the work

• The right to borrow portions of the work for use in compilations or other composite works

• The right to reproduce the work for uses directly relatedto advancing the mission or maintaining the culture ofthe college or university

• The right to be informed in advance of any uses, reproductions, distributions, and dispositions of thecopyrighted work by the author(s)

• The right to duplicate the work for teaching, scholarship,and research and, on a limited basis, the right to makederivative works if the author or authors assign copy-right ownership to a third party6

Institutions should treat technology innovations as original contributions to the betterment of education and should begenerous and forward-thinking by offeringattractive incentives for such activities.

The symposium participants agreed that all institutions needto have a framework for thinking through these issues and theimplications of the electronic revolution for their institutionsand faculty. Having a framework for discussion and decision-making is, however, quite different from writing elaboratepolicies. One of the questions the participants considered was whether or not every institution needs a policy, since it is unlikely that the vast majority of institutions will createcourse materials that make money. Most policies that are being written on campuses today are overly complicated because institutions are trying to anticipate all possible circumstances. Including a detailed division of royalties, forexample, seems extreme considering the likelihood that acommercially viable product will even be produced.

We recommend that the default policy position for all institu-tions should be that the faculty member owns the course materials he or she has created. Rather than trying to antici-pate all the possible exceptions and include them in a policy,institutions may want to incorporate “trigger mechanisms” in the primary policy; these would define specific situations or conditions that would trigger the application of a secondpolicy. As an example, if the course materials are commercial-ized by someone other than the college or university and actually make money, the institution could reserve the right toget a certain percentage of royalties to recover any investmentit may have made. That percentage should be small, perhaps 5 percent.

Who commercializes the products—who markets and distributes them—is a critical issue. If the institution is in a position to take on these activities, or to negotiate with external entities on behalf of the faculty member to help incommercializing the products, the institution could also saythat it has an office to perform these tasks. The stance towardthe faculty member would be, “If you need the institution’shelp to do something or think that we can add value to theprocess, then come to us.” This approach puts the institutionin the position of figuring out ways to provide support to faculty and addressing the issue as one of process rather thanone of intellectual property.

1. Lisa Guernsey and Jeffrey R. Young, “Who Owns On LineCourses?” Chronicle of Higher Education, June 5, 1998.

2. David F. Noble, “Digital Diploma Mills: The Automation of Higher Education,” October 1997. http://www.firstmonday.dk/issues/issue31/noble/index.html

3. Perry M. Robinson, Technology and Higher Education,1996-97 (Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers, 1997).

4. This section draws heavily from Dan Burk’s excellent exposition of the legal issues: Dan L. Burk, “Ownership of Electronic Course Materials in Higher Education,”CAUSE/EFFECT 20, No. 3 (fall 1997): 13–18. http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/html/cem9734.html

5. Consortium for Educational Technology for University Systems (CETUS), “Ownership of New Works at the University: Unbundling of Rights and the Pursuit of HigherLearning,” 1997. http://www.cetus.org/ownership.pdf

6. These recommendations are drawn directly from the CETUS report, ibid.

26


What Kind of Policy Do We Need?

Notes

Most policies that are being written oncampuses today are overly complicated because institutions are trying to anticipate all possible circumstances.Including a detailed division of royalties,for example, seems extreme consideringthe likelihood that a commercially viableproduct will even be produced.

27


Barbara McFadden AllenDirectorCommittee on Institutional Cooperation

Dan L. BurkProfessor of LawUniversity of Minnesota Law School

Bruce ChalouxDirector, Southern Regional Electronic

CampusSouthern Regional Education Board

George ConnickPresidentDistance Education Publications

Kenneth D. CrewsDirector, Copyright Management Center,

and Associate Professor of LawIndiana University–Purdue University

Indianapolis

Russ EdgertonDirector, Pew Forum on Undergraduate

LearningThe Education Trust

William H. GravesChairman and FounderEduprise

Georgia K. HarperAttorney/Section Manager–Intellectual

PropertyUniversity of Texas System

Isabella HindsDirector of Publisher AlliancesWebCT

Terence P. McElweeDirector, Technology Transfer and

Corporate ResearchMarquette University

Gary MillerAssociate Vice President, Continuing

and Distance EducationPenn State University

James NealDean of University LibrariesThe Johns Hopkins University

Rodney J. PetersenDirector, OIT Policy and PlanningUniversity of Maryland

Carol A. TwiggExecutive DirectorCenter for Academic Transformation

Virtual ParticipantsRobert K. GeminVice President and PublisherArchipelago Productions

Robert C. Heterick, Jr.Former PresidentEducom

Sylvia ManningInterim ChancellorThe University of Illinois at Chicago

Christopher J. RogersDirector of New Business DevelopmentJohn Wiley and Sons, Inc.

RapporteursPatricia BartschererProgram ManagerCenter for Academic Transformation

Susan OaksAssistant Professor and Area

Coordinator, Communications, Arts, and Humanities

SUNY Empire State College

Symposium Participants

T H E P E W L E A R N I N G A N D T E C H N O L O G Y P R O G R A M

R E N S S E L A E R P O L Y T E C H N I C I N S T I T U T E • D E A N ’ S S U I T E , P I T T S B U R G H B U I L D I N G

1 1 0 8 T H S T R E E T , T R O Y , N E W Y O R K 1 2 1 8 0 - 3 5 9 0P H 5 1 8 - 2 7 6 - 6 5 1 9 • F X 5 1 8 - 6 9 5 - 5 6 3 3 • W W W . C E N T E R . R P I . E D U

who owns online courses and course materials? who owns online courses and course

Documents